WITHIN-GRADE PROMOTIONS The other adjustments in that column, personnelwise, after making full allowance for the reduction of two positions there under the caption "Assistant Secretary, International Affairs" are for within-grade salary promotions which are automatic and fixed by law. Senator MCCARRAN. So you are reducing two positions there, is that right? Mr. CAWLEY. We are reducing two positions in the Office of the Assistant, International Affairs. Senator MCCARRAN. And increasing two in the Office of the Under Secretary. Mr. CAWLEY. Yes. It is not increasing the positions, it is increasing the average employment, because the Under Secretary position has been vacant. We propose to fill that the next fiscal year. Senator MCCARRAN. The "Assistant Secretary, Administration❞— you are increasing that 1.2. What does that mean? Mr. CAWLEY. That means the average employment goes up because he just came on the job in November of this current year. So next year, have him on for a full year will increase the average employment, and provide the additional cash required for his particular position. DISCUSSION ON PAY FOR EXTRA DAY DUE TO LEAP YEAR Senator MCCARRAN. Now we are coming into that regular pay in excess of 52-weeks base. Is that the extra day in February? Mr. CAWLEY. That is the one extra day in leap year, Mr. Chairman. Senator MCCARRAN. On March 22, I addressed a communication to the Comptroller General which I will insert in the record, drawing his attention to this extra pay. I have his answer of April 10, wherein he says: Reference is made to your letter of March 22, 1951, relative to section 604 (d) of the Federal Employees' Pay Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 295), requesting my recommendations upon alternatives to the present pay system, either by way of providing an over-all fiscal year limitation upon employees' annual salary rates, or returning to the system formerly in effect, under the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 763). The matter is receiving the careful consideration of this office, and I shall be pleased to inform you further with respect thereto at an early date. That letter will also be inserted in the record. (The letters follow :) Hon. PAT MCCARRAN, APRIL 10, 1951. Chairman, Subcommittee on State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary, United States Senate. MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Reference is made to your letter of March 22, 1951, relative to section 604 (d) of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 295), requesting my recommendations upon alternatives to the present pay system either by way of providing an over-all fiscal year limitation upon employees' annual salary rates or returning to the system formerly in effect, under the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 763). The matter is receiving the careful consideration of this Office and I shall be pleased to inform you further with respect thereto at an early date. Sincerely yours, 80513-51-pt. 1-29 LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States. MARCH 22, 1951. Hon. LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. WARREN : During the consideration of the budget estimates of the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Judiciary, for the fiscal year 1952, the question has arisen as to the effect of the requirements of section 604 (d) of the Federal Employees Pay Act of 1945, as amended, that for pay computation purposes per annum rates of compensation shall be regarded as payment for employment during 52 basic administrative workweeks of 40 hours. It has been indicated that for the fiscal year 1952, it will require an additional $15,000,000 to meet the requirement of this section over the amount that would be needed if the annual rate specified in the law were the actual amount to be paid for the fiscal year. I would like to have your comments on proposed alternatives to the present system either by way of providing an over-all fiscal year limitation for an employee's pay in the amount of the annual rate specified in the law or by way of returning to the system formerly in effect under the 1906 act. Sincerely, PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman Subcommittee on State. Justice, Commerce, and The Judiciary. Mr. CAWLEY. Under existing laws and regulations we have to provide for that extra day. Senator MCCARRAN. I wanted to get an explanation of this paper that you handed me. Are the personnel in the Office of the Secretary paid from defense funds as of April 13, 1951? Will you explain that to me, please? Mr. CAWLEY. In order to care for the increased work occasioned by the NPA, those employees were added. Senator MCCARRAN. Where are you getting this money now? Mr. CAWLEY. That money has been allotted by the Bureau of the Budget to the Secretary out of the defense funds. These are the employees necessary to cope with the additional burdens on the Office of the Secretary. Senator MCCARRAN. Will these have to be continued? Mr. CAWLEY. It is our proposal to request continuation of these employees, not only in the fourth quarter of this year, as is contained in the supplemental, but also a portion of them in the 1952 budget, when that is submitted to Congress. Senator MCCARRAN. When that comes up here? Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. Senator MCCARRAN. Is that going to come up here before we conclude these hearings? Mr. CAWLEY. No; I am afraid that will not be up until some time in May. before Congress Senator MCCARRAN. They will come as a supplemental? SEPARATION OF NORMAL WORK AND WORK OCCASIONED BY CURRENT MOBILIZATION EFFORT Senator FERGUSON. How have you separated the current mobilization from your regular normal work and the National Production Authority from the regular normal work? Mr. CAWLEY. Senator, the increased workload for which this personnel of 122 has been added is directly attributable to the NPA work in the Department. We have not attempted any further separation in the sense that other agencies of the Department are engaged in aspects of mobilization which we are now financing out of existing funds. Senator FERGUSON. It always appeared to me that when you take up mobilization, as we are, that certain other work should be dropped, as being nonessential, the so-called luxuries in Government. I do not find that you do that. You keep the other department within a few employees. You take 6,163 gross, but you take down 6,531 out of the Census Bureau because last year was the census year. Mr. CAWLEY. Senator, as each of these bureaus come before the committee, they will be able to go into more details respecting the impact of mobilization on their agencies. In answer to your earlier question, I would like to make this statement: that we have made certain reductions in the Department. Senator FERGUSON. You have not, on a total basis, because you took more out of the Bureau of the Census; that is, the particular job of the Seventeenth Decennial Census. Mr. CAWLEY. Take the departmental services of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. That will show a sizable reduction in 1952. Senator FERGUSON. Others must be going up over and above that. You have attempted to separate the mobilization and put that under a separate heading; is that right? Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. Senator FERGUSON. Have you transferred any of your regular employees from your regular civilian work, the ordinary work, to this mobilization payroll? Mr. CAWLEY. Yes, sir. Senator FERGUSON. Have you changed their status and salaries? Have you had promotions? Mr. CAWLEY. There have been promotions. LIST OF PROMOTIONS AND CHANGES IN PAY Senator FERGUSON. Will you give us a list of all of the promotions, and how much they were and what was the difference in pay? Mr. CAWLEY. If I may provide that to the committee? Senator FERGUSON. Yes. (The information referred to was supplied to the committee.) TRANSFER OF PERSONNEL TO NPA Mr. CAWLEY. We transferred approximately 400 people from the regular activities of the Department into the NPA and placed them on the NPA rolls. The money from which they were previously paid was impounded as part of the reserves, required in the last appropriation act. That money is still impounded. The Secretary has laid down a firm policy in the Department, that persons transferring to the National Production Authority generally speaking, will not be permitted more than a one-grade increase above a grade 10. Senator FERGUSON. Why should they have any grade increase? What is the difference between working in mobilization and working in nonmobilization work? Mr. CAWLEY. In his policy, he answers that question in this way: That his policy does not necessarily mean they get an increase, but if the work merits one, it is proper to advance them. Senator FERGUSON. Why is the work in Mobilization different than in nonmobilization? Take a clerk or an administrator? What is the difference? Mr. CAWLEY. Increased responsibilities. Senator FERGUSON. What is the increased responsibility? You will have to point that out; will you not? Mr. CAWLEY. We do to the Civil Service Commission. Senator FERGUSON. You will have to point it out to this committee. Why should we allow you to have increases without showing us that there is a harder job to be done? Mr. CAWLEY. I think that is quite true. As we show you these promotions, we will be glad to state the added responsibilities which brought about the increase. Senator FERGUSON. I am trying to find out where Government is tightening its belt. We are telling the people back home to tighten their belts. We are going into an emergency so they must tighten their belts. I have to try and show the people where we have pulled the belt in in Government. Instead of finding it, we find the waistline getting bigger. These promotions are coming. You are saying they are more important jobs. The people back home have more important jobs because of defense, but they are not getting more money. We are going to try and put a clamp on that. We are fixing prices and profits. Mr. CAWLEY. There is one other statement I would like to make, as it affects the bureaus and offices of the Department. An organization such as the Civil Aeronautics Administration feels quite intensely the impact of the mobilization work. I think their record is very good on that. CENSUS PERSONNEL AND THE MOBILIZATION EFFORT Senator FERGUSON. I appreciate that, but I cannot see how the Census Bureau at all can be affected by this. I think you can cut out a lot of your details on the Census and put it over a period of years, rather than to try to do it now, when we need the manpower for real mobilization. Mr. CAWLEY. The War Production Board in the last war utilized the Census Bureau almost exclusively on the matter of vital statistics for war purposes. That is beginning right now. The NPA is looking more and more to the Census Bureau. Senator FERGUSON. I can agree there are certain things in there, but I am talking about the luxuries. Mr. CAWLEY. We have advised the Census Bureau of this matter. They will come before this committee fully prepared to discuss it in great detail, and more so than I should like to do at this time. Senator MCCARRAN. You have not increased your Census employees? Mr. CAWLEY. No. They are decreased, but the remaining force will be engaged in statistics important to defense. Senator FERGUSON. They are asking for the 164 new positions in the Census Bureau. Mr. CAWLEY. They will be up here this afternoon for more details. Senator MCCARRAN. I want to go back to this statement of yours. I want to get this clear as to what it means. Let us see if I state it correctly. It means that of the application made to you by the President, or NPA, this additional personnel was employed because of the extra burden of those various departments; is that right? Mr. CAWLEY. That is right. Senator MCCARRAN. They are being paid out of the money allocated to you by the President? Mr. CAWLEY. That is right. METHOD OF OBTAINING OPERATIONAL FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1951-52 Senator MCCARRAN. Do you propose to come in with a regular appropriation to be passed upon by this committee for this work for the fiscal year 1951-52 or do you propose to come on with an appropriation to the White House and have it allocated again to you for the fiscal year 1951-52? Mr. CAWLEY. That has not been fully decided. The Bureau of the Budget has it under advisement. The least I can say is that the funds required for the purposes here you have described will not come before this committee as a part of our regular 1952 budget. It will be in the nature of an emergency budget, whether appropriated directly to the Department of Commerce or to the White House for allocation to the other agencies. Senator MCCARRAN. I do not care how it comes, whether it comes as a supplemental or as a regular budgeted program for 1951-52. I do not think that it should pass through the White House, because I do not think it is necessary that it should. I think it should come directly from Congress to the Department. As far as I am concerned personally, that would deprive you of it, and that would be what I would vote for. I do not think it is necessary now. The war curriculum is set up, so to speak. It seems to me the necessity for it should be known by the departments. For instance, you should know what additional personnel you need and what additional facilities you need. That knowledge should be presented to the Congress, so that they may appropriate directly to the Department. By reason if the NPA you had to have 95 additional personnel in the Office of the Secretary, as set out in this paper you have handed me; is that correct? Mr. CAWLEY. Mr. Chairman, 95 is just one of the services there, the total is 122 in the Office of the Secretary. That is for the entire office. Senator MCCARRAN. Budget and Management got 3; immediate office of the Secretary, 3; personnel administration, 2; and personnel operations, 14. Mr. CAWLEY. That is the centralized personnel services in the Office of the Secretary, which provides such services for the immediate office of the Secretary, the Office of Technical Services and the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. The chairman will recall in prior years we discussed the fact that we had centralized certain of our services in the Department for three or four offices. This is just an extension of that personnel operation |